You mean, MF wide-angle is one thing but a MF telephoto is another - anyway, I get your point ;-)

Seriously though, 70-200mm is a great focal-length range for many portrait 'togs. For these Guys, AF is very handy if you're using shallow DOF and/or zooming at the longish end. I'd be a bit surprised if it doesn't have AF, even though that would be a first for Zeiss.

Logged

frisk

I'm sorry if any Zeiss fans find my opinion insulting, but to me this looks like yet another solution to a non-existing problem - at least as far as Canon cameras are concerned. I am not even going to consider the possibility that this would be a Tamron/Tokina "cheap" alternative - this is Zeiss, after all - so the only way to market this lens would be on the basis of quality.

Now, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is good. Really, really good - so good in fact that a "better" lens would probably not produce any meaningful improvements for most users - so why should anyone want this lens - for the "snob" factor, yes, but what else?

Then there is the issue of IS and AF - sure, a MF lens like the 15mm one may be just fine, but for a zoom? This lens would need AF to be competitive - otherwise it would just be a way for people to show that have more money than common sense.

Yeah, the type of person who will reach for a 70-200 is probably not shooting something that can be manually focused. Unfortunately that would open up all of the "my 3rd party lens does not focus correctly" forum posts. Which I would think is one of the reasons Zeiss has stayed away from AF in anything but sony. Looking at the price of the new Zeiss 15mm f2.8 I would guess a 70-200 f2.8 would be double Canon's or Nikon's offerings.

Though looking at the excellent build quality and IQ of my Zeiss lenses it would probably be a magnificent lens.

I'm just sayin'... Not that one is better than the other, but that both are pretty dang near flawless, (at least at 12 megapixels) ...and that Zeiss will have to look elsewhere besides sheer resolution to impress any who already own either of these two lenses. Which from the discussion relating to cinematography, does seem to be the case.

I agree. Having to deal with both Zoom and Focus at the same time would be a nightmare when you're out shooting moving subjects. I assume this would be at a price point that only professionals or people with last names like Bush or Rockefeller could afford.